Is God particularly fierce?

[davidmartin]

Originally Posted by ketzer

I agree that if God has gotten a bad name it is not God's fault but rather those who have presumed to know God's will and speak for God, and perhaps equally so those who have made the mistake of believing them. It seems to me that as often as not, the they and the them in the above sentence are one and the same. I don't know why we seem to believe things when I suspect that deep down on the inside we really know better, perhaps it has something to do with our stomachs and the promise of a meal. Personally, I would not seek to forbid anyone from seeking God, in fact I suspect it is the central reason we are here in the first place. I would however caution anyone doing so to keep one eye on evil as the other searches for good, as the two can be hard to tell apart, especially when one does not necessarily know what they are looking at.
I really don't see the world as rejecting all religious and moral principles in the belief that life is meaningless as the crux of some supposed problem. Today as much as ever many seem to rely on religions to tell them what the meaning of life is, and to dictate to them what their moral principles should be. And today as much as ever, those teachings and dogmas hide as much evil behind their fig leaves as any good they may espouse. It is not that we accept both good and evil as inevitable, but that as much as ever, we struggle to know which is which, and as ever, we bring our own bias toward self to the examination.
I think that it is perhaps as common a problem that we have found the evil within to be unappealing and have therefore hidden it from ourselves. If we are absolute enough at denying the evil within ourselves, pretty soon all we can see within is good, which can make it difficult to tell the words of evil coming from within from the absolute good words of God. We find others to blame for the evil in the world that seems to us to be nihilistically accepted by so many, and they return the favor. Whether we go about seeking absolute good in the world, or go off to battle to bring it about, we should perhaps first learn to recognize the evil that lies within ourselves, and realize that we must first get the self in order before we seek to show others the way, or even to recognize good outside of ourselves. If what we are intent on looking for is good without evil, we run the risk of missing the evil that is right behind our own noses. But that is not on God, God is patient and willing to wait as we bounce blindly off rock after rock as we find our way downstream and back to the ocean.

"How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while there is still a beam in your own eye?"
Matthew 7:4

i'm sorry ketzer a lot of what you say is true and you put it well
for nihilism there is a malaise of it about, in fact i don't feel able truly to see the state of the world in enough dimensions to think i have an accurate view of it. i think 'seeing' the way the world is, is just as hard as trying to see God, maybe even harder
the only thing that prompted me to reply to this topic is an unwillingness to give up that idea embedded in Christianity of perfect goodness, when comparing to a yin/yang type idea of cosmic balance and evil as necessary as good.
i do think there's plenty of room in Christianity to see good and evil as ultimately deriving from the same source, but mediated through free will
thats why God can say 'i am sinless and the root of sin derives from me'
so all it is for me is wanting to keep true that idea of perfect goodness, even though evil does come of it i think that's God's nature. the yin/yang idea doesn't seem to need God to function almost...

Originally Posted by davidmartin

i'm sorry ketzer a lot of what you say is true and you put it well
for nihilism there is a malaise of it about, in fact i don't feel able truly to see the state of the world in enough dimensions to think i have an accurate view of it. i think 'seeing' the way the world is, is just as hard as trying to see God, maybe even harder
the only thing that prompted me to reply to this topic is an unwillingness to give up that idea embedded in Christianity of perfect goodness, when comparing to a yin/yang type idea of cosmic balance and evil as necessary as good.
i do think there's plenty of room in Christianity to see good and evil as ultimately deriving from the same source, but mediated through free will
thats why God can say 'i am sinless and the root of sin derives from me'
so all it is for me is wanting to keep true that idea of perfect goodness, even though evil does come of it i think that's God's nature. the yin/yang idea doesn't seem to need God to function almost...

Well, I can't speak for Taoism itself, but I have never taken the yin/yang idea to mean that everything must stay balanced. I don't think of it as some sort of cosmic balancing principle that says that there must always be equal parts good and evil in manifestation. IMO, it is more a realization of that which appears as two is often one thing, one dimension (up/down forward/backward, hot/cold, ying/yang, yada/yida) seen from two different perspectives, points of view that we use to explore its nature. It is good to keep this in mind when we are viewing it from one perspective or the other. That said, everything in Taoism is a bit more mystical in nature and there is risk in trying to convey any of it, hence the warning in the first verse of the Tao Te Ching.

The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin of all particular things.
Free from desire, you can see the hidden mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only what is visibly real.
Yet mystery and visible reality arise from the same source.
And the mystery itself is the gateway to all understanding.

Good and evil are labels, names we put on the unnamable eternally real arising from our desire to see it clearly. Yet we often fail to realize that what we see is not what is there, but that which we put into the name ourselves. We look into the concepts we created within our own mind and mistake it for that which is beyond it. We create our visible reality to explore that mystery, but then get distracted and lost in our own creation and forget that it is ourselves we are really exploring, we are the underlying mystery in which all the forms arise. And as you have said in a different posting, the true Jesus, lies within that mystery as well. Desiring to understand him, we place names and labels on him and forget that it is we who put them there, he did not come with them. And then we say "God" has spoken, and now I must understand and obey, not realizing that it is we who are speaking for God. God itself remains a mystery, unknowable and beyond any name we can give it. We may seek the absolute, but can we know it if we find it? And if not, what might we mistake for it.

https://www.aish.com/jl/p/g/48942416.html

[davidmartin]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Well, I can't speak for Taoism itself, but I have never taken the yin/yang idea to mean that everything must stay balanced. I don't think of it as some sort of cosmic balancing principle that says that there must always be equal parts good and evil in manifestation. IMO, it is more a realization of that which appears as two is often one thing, one dimension (up/down forward/backward, hot/cold, ying/yang, yada/yida) seen from two different perspectives, points of view that we use to explore its nature. It is good to keep this in mind when we are viewing it from one perspective or the other. That said, everything in Taoism is a bit more mystical in nature and there is risk in trying to convey any of it, hence the warning in the first verse of the Tao Te Ching.


Good and evil are labels, names we put on the unnamable eternally real arising from our desire to see it clearly. Yet we often fail to realize that what we see is not what is there, but that which we put into the name ourselves. We look into the concepts we created within our own mind and mistake it for that which is beyond it. We create our visible reality to explore that mystery, but then get distracted and lost in our own creation and forget that it is ourselves we are really exploring, we are the underlying mystery in which all the forms arise. And as you have said in a different posting, the true Jesus, lies within that mystery as well. Desiring to understand him, we place names and labels on him and forget that it is we who put them there, he did not come with them. And then we say "God" has spoken, and now I must understand and obey, not realizing that it is we who are speaking for God. God itself remains a mystery, unknowable and beyond any name we can give it. We may seek the absolute, but can we know it if we find it? And if not, what might we mistake for it.

https://www.aish.com/jl/p/g/48942416.html

True enough Ketzer,
>but I have never taken the yin/yang idea to mean that everything must stay balanced. I don't think of it as some sort of cosmic balancing principle that says that there must always be equal parts good and evil in manifestation
because one is desirable and the other isn't?

your quote on Tao mentioned freedom from desire, but the Tao is itself desirable if i'm not mistaken. that idea is in Christianity,
the calling beauty, or wisdom calling out on the street corner and things like that
but then if you obtain your desire, do you desire any more?
or would you then desire to feel desire again like the first time, to repeat the entire cycle an infinite number of times

i find it easy to believe evil is not a cosmic principle but only something that exists in humans on earth or localised to our region
good would be far above it - unless the mystics were correct that talked of rebellion in the heavens and the whole Gnostic idea of demiurge, but i think they mistook something playing out on earth for heavenly reality taking as below so above too literally

but either way seeking good represents finding that absolute, good, all perfect source within/above
so the cosmology just can't see good and evil as co-equal in their nature only what comes from them is opposite

what you said about names absolutely true. i got this idea from the gospel philip
"Names given to the worldly are very deceptive, for they divert our thoughts from what is correct to what is incorrect. Thus one who hears the word "God" does not perceive what is correct, but perceives what is incorrect. So also with "the Father" and "the Son" and "the Holy Spirit" and "life" and "light" and "resurrection" and "the Church (Ekklesia)" and all the rest - people do not perceive what is correct but they perceive what is incorrect
But truth brought names into existence in the world for our sakes, because it is not possible to learn it (truth) without these names. Truth is one single thing; it is many things and for our sakes to teach about this one thing in love through many things. The rulers (archons) wanted to deceive man, since they saw that he had a kinship with those that are truly good. They took the name of those that are good and gave it to those that are not good, so that through the names they might deceive him and bind them to those that are not good. And afterward, what a favor they do for them! They make them be removed from those that are not good and place them among those that are good. These things they knew, for they wanted to take the free man and make him a slave to them forever"
those old dudes knew how to kick butt!

Originally Posted by davidmartin

the only thing that prompted me to reply to this topic is an unwillingness to give up that idea embedded in Christianity of perfect goodness, when comparing to a yin/yang type idea of cosmic balance and evil as necessary as good.
.

davidmartin,

First of all, I apologize for referencing just one sentence of your posting. But mentioning 'perfect' caught my attention. How does a Christian define 'perfect'? As a student of scripture I am drawn to the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5:48.....Jesus says..."Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect". This seems difficult, if not impossible, to understand. How can one possibly be perfect?

IMO, the answer is found in the parallel verse in Luke's version of the Sermon on the Mount. After almost identical preceding verses in both books Luke 6:36 has Jesus saying this...."Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful". Being merciful, IMO, is much easier to understand than 'being perfect'. Mercy, in its strictest sense, is what a judge gives you despite your acknowledged or proven guilt. Mercy implies understanding, love and forgiveness. Mercy is an act that we can both understand and practice.

Originally Posted by davidmartin

True enough Ketzer,

your quote on Tao mentioned freedom from desire, but the Tao is itself desirable if i'm not mistaken.

I suppose the Tao is something desirable, or an understanding of it is anyway. But it is one of those paradoxes. If we try to grasp at it, we end up with a handful of our own mind, the mystery (the true Tao) slips through our fingers. And yet when we give up trying and just go about life, one day we come across a bit of wisdom within that we didn't see go in and we grasp the Tao a little bit more. I suppose it is zenish in that way. It did not really come from knowing though knowledge may have brought it closer, then again knowledge could just have easily blocked it as well.

i find it easy to believe evil is not a cosmic principle but only something that exists in humans on earth or localised to our region good would be far above it - unless the mystics were correct that talked of rebellion in the heavens and the whole Gnostic idea of demiurge, but i think they mistook something laying out on earth for heavenly reality taking as below so above too literally
but either way seeking good represents finding that absolute, good, all perfect source within/above so the cosmology just can't see good and evil as co-equal in their nature only what comes from them is opposite

True, as much as evil is conceptually necessary and contained within the concept of good, I think it is equally true that good is conceptually above or superior to evil. Good and evil are more like up and down then they are left and right. Good contains the connotation of "better" within it while evil contains the connotation of "worse". One dimension, but no, the directions are not equal from my mind's point of view.

what you said about names absolutely true. i got this idea from the gospel philip "Names given to the worldly are very deceptive, for they divert our thoughts from what is correct to what is incorrect. Thus one who hears the word "God" does not perceive what is correct, but perceives what is incorrect. So also with "the Father" and "the Son" and "the Holy Spirit" and "life" and "light" and "resurrection" and "the Church (Ekklesia)" and all the rest - people do not perceive what is correct but they perceive what is incorrect

I suppose we perceive our perceptions, which are always limited. Onto those perceptions we place a name as a label, a handle. Then we grasp the handles and manipulate the perceptions like building blocks into concepts and models of larger and larger truths. Then we find we have a hard time questioning those perceptions fearful that the truths we have built ourselves and our lives from will come crumbling down like a house of cards. Yet, there can be great freedom in admitting to oneself that they have been a fool, are a fool, and seem to have a great affinity for fooling oneself. It can be cleansing, like scraping the paint off the windows and looking through them again. Knowledge is fine as far as it goes, but when we mistake it for absolute truth, it can become a false floor, beneath which the mystery continues to go deeper.

[davidmartin]

Originally Posted by Molearner

davidmartin,

First of all, I apologize for referencing just one sentence of your posting. But mentioning 'perfect' caught my attention. How does a Christian define 'perfect'? As a student of scripture I am drawn to the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5:48.....Jesus says..."Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect". This seems difficult, if not impossible, to understand. How can one possibly be perfect?

IMO, the answer is found in the parallel verse in Luke's version of the Sermon on the Mount. After almost identical preceding verses in both books Luke 6:36 has Jesus saying this...."Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful". Being merciful, IMO, is much easier to understand than 'being perfect'. Mercy, in its strictest sense, is what a judge gives you despite your acknowledged or proven guilt. Mercy implies understanding, love and forgiveness. Mercy is an act that we can both understand and practice.

i guess this is another one of his thought provoking parables! but it's nice to know God is perfect, his followers are supposed to resemble this but how is it they so often don't, as often judged rightly but outsiders to the faith. this is one of the things that set me on the path to exploring things for myself because that doesn't make any sense either.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Molearner

davidmartin,

First of all, I apologize for referencing just one sentence of your posting. But mentioning 'perfect' caught my attention. How does a Christian define 'perfect'? As a student of scripture I am drawn to the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5:48.....Jesus says..."Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect". This seems difficult, if not impossible, to understand. How can one possibly be perfect?

IMO, the answer is found in the parallel verse in Luke's version of the Sermon on the Mount. After almost identical preceding verses in both books Luke 6:36 has Jesus saying this...."Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful". Being merciful, IMO, is much easier to understand than 'being perfect'. Mercy, in its strictest sense, is what a judge gives you despite your acknowledged or proven guilt. Mercy implies understanding, love and forgiveness. Mercy is an act that we can both understand and practice.

' How can one possibly be perfect? '


Spiritually we are all perfect

[sky]

Originally Posted by davidmartin

i guess this is another one of his thought provoking parables! but it's nice to know God is perfect, his followers are supposed to resemble this but how is it they so often don't, as often judged rightly but outsiders to the faith. this is one of the things that set me on the path to exploring things for myself because that doesn't make any sense either.

' God is perfect, his followers are supposed to resemble this but how is it they so often don't, '


Because God is Spirit and his followers are Human. Spirit is perfect, humans are flawed...

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by Molearner

davidmartin,

First of all, I apologize for referencing just one sentence of your posting. But mentioning 'perfect' caught my attention. How does a Christian define 'perfect'? As a student of scripture I am drawn to the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5:48.....Jesus says..."Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect". This seems difficult, if not impossible, to understand. How can one possibly be perfect?

IMO, the answer is found in the parallel verse in Luke's version of the Sermon on the Mount. After almost identical preceding verses in both books Luke 6:36 has Jesus saying this...."Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful". Being merciful, IMO, is much easier to understand than 'being perfect'. Mercy, in its strictest sense, is what a judge gives you despite your acknowledged or proven guilt. Mercy implies understanding, love and forgiveness. Mercy is an act that we can both understand and practice.

I'm obviously not DavidMartin, but I think that you yourself described how to be perfect in one of your posts on another thread. When one surrenders to the Divine COMPLETELY and UNCONDITIONALLY, one attunes to the "Thy Will Be Done" principle which guides one unerringly, becomes "one with the Father", and thus discovers "perfection". That is my take and it seems consistent with what you wrote in another thread.

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

I'm obviously not DavidMartin, but I think that you yourself described how to be perfect in one of your posts on another thread. When one surrenders to the Divine COMPLETELY and UNCONDITIONALLY, one attunes to the "Thy Will Be Done" principle which guides one unerringly, becomes "one with the Father", and thus discovers "perfection". That is my take and it seems consistent with what you wrote in another thread.

Still_Waters,

Yes, that is essentially the principle. I am reminded of the verse...."No greater love is this, than one would lay down his life for another". Literally(and correctly) this means physical death for another's sake. Metaphorically it can mean the surrender and/or suspension of one's ego. We must give up the control even temporarily that the ego has on us. By the way this surrender of the ego is a characteristic of any genuine act of love. In this earth we always revert to the pull of the ego. But this surrender/suspension is like any other thing we are attempting to achieve or excel at. It takes practice and with repetition it becomes more frequent and represents more opportunity to give ourselves to God/the Divine.